almost because I disagree with a tiny detail which is in bold, I don't respect their beliefs, I might respect them for who they are as a person, but I don't think unfounded blind faith is a virtue, especially when it turns people into morally vile and twisted characters and often leads to violence once someone decides to follow the script by the letter, not to mention when the founding script of said religion contains so many disgusting parts
I do think that only a minority is as extreme as it may seem in threads like these.
I'm an agnostic myself but I grew up as a catholic and quite a few of my family members are still religious (catholic, lutheran,...) in a very moderate way. Not every religious person is twisted and extreme. I know only one extreme person and she is impossible to argue with because she wants respect for her beliefs but gives no respect back. Not everybody is like that.
Most of my family, even if they do consider themselves catholic, believe in gay rights, are critical towards the pope,... They may be believers but it's not a blind faith.
Many I know believe in god because they are convinced that there's enough evidence of his presence around us. I may not agree with them and I may question why god has to be so invisible and why you just have to "believe" because expecting hard evidence shows that you don't have enough faith in god. However, many of the moderate religious people I know do feel that they see evidence around us (in nature for example).
Most religious people I know say that the Bible is written by people in a specific social context. Adding to that, many mistakes were made during the translations (one of the priests who taught us at school used to give us examples of wrong translations which was actually fun and he used those examples to remind us that you need to be critical of what you read, even if it's the Bible. That was a catholic priest saying that).
The Bible as we know it now was re-written in a major way in the early middle ages and many of the mysogynist passages were added and written in during that time. For example, Mary Magdelene changed from being one of the disciples of Jesus (a highly respected woman) to a whore just because those in charge of the church back then decided that the church should be a men's business and women should "know their place" and not given that much power. In the early days of christianity, however, women had a much bigger role (my sister is a theologist, can you tell?
She knows much more about this obviously). For example, the idea that the clergy in the catholic church (priests, cardinals, the pope,...) have to be male and have to be celibate was only introduced in the middle ages. Popes used to have wives. Priests used to be able to marry.
One of the explanations given now for the fact that only men can be priests in the catholic church is that the disciples of Jesus were all male and they accompanied jesus without wives so they have to be celibate. However, at least one of his disciples was a woman (Mary Magdelene) and most of those disciples were actually married.
Islam can't be reduced to the extremists.
Christianity can't be reduced to the extremists either.
You can't dismiss an entire religion if you're only willing to reduce it to its extremes.
Edit: Catholicism is part of christianity. To say otherwise is dumb. The word christianity contains the word "christ" as in Jesus Christ. So, every religion where Jesus is seen as the christ, the messiah,...is part of christianity. In catholicism, Jesus is seen as the messiah, hence, it's a christian religion.